.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

WHEN Cardinal Mario Bergoglio assumed
the Petrine ministry and took the namesake of St. Francis, a Filipino archbishop
already surmised that the new pontiff will pursue an agenda inspired by St.
Francis of Assisi, namely: the poor, the environment and peace. He was
right.

During his
inaugural address in March 2013, Pope Francis already outlined this when he
said, “I would like to ask all those who have positions of responsibility in
economic, political and social life, and all men and women of goodwill: Let us be ‘protectors’ of creation,
protectors of God’s plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of
the environment.”

It was no
surprise then that his much-awaited encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si, would take prominence in the
agenda of his pontificate. He spoke on
behalf of the poor while bewailing poor governance and bad business for placing
“speculation and the pursuit of financial gain” ahead of the common good. He pointed the “tragic rise in migrants,” to
escape poverty caused by environmental degradation. He chastised global inequality and called for
a “true ecological approach” that will “hear both the cry of the earth and the
cry of the poor”.

The encyclical
points out how the poor have been seriously hurt by demographic segregation in
modern society, which is partly due to “the fact that many professionals,
opinion makers, communications media and centers of power, being located in
affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact
with their problems.” In the end “this lack of physical contact and encounter,
encouraged at times by the disintegration of our cities, can led to a numbing
of conscience and to tendentious analyses which neglect parts of reality,” (No.
49).

Both the
environment and people, especially those in the peripheries, fatally suffer
injury from the worsening structural evils proliferated by economic and
political ends. Says the encyclical,
“Human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot
adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related
to human and social degradation,” (No. 48).

The root causes
are, of course, not in the stars but in the human heart. In 1988, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of
the Philippines issued its first landmark pastoral letter on ecology, “What is
happening to our beautiful land”. It
said, “At the root of the problem we see and exploitative mentality, which is
at variance with the Gospel of Jesus. This expresses itself in acts of violence
against fellow Filipinos. But it is not
confined to the human sphere. It also
infects and poisons our relationship with our land and seas.”

At the end of
the day, the call to good stewardship of creation may actually be a call to
conversion of the heart.

Monday, June 08, 2015

LAST week the House of Representatives
has passed on second reading the so-called economic charter change bill formally
known as Resolution of Both Houses 1 (RBH-1).
Co-authored by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., and Senator Ralph Recto,
RBH-1 seeks to enable the removal of constitutional restrictions on foreign
ownership of Philippine businesses and property through the insertion of the
phrases “unless provided by law” into the pertinent provisions of the
Constitutions.

The
Resolution that was well endorsed by administration lackeys of both Houses of
Congress provides “that a voice of three-fourths (3/4) of all its Members, each
House voting separately, and pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution, to
propose amendments to Articles XII, XIV and XVI of the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines, with the following proposals…”

Judging
from posts in social media and from comments of independent groups and individuals,
this move to change the Constitution is emerging to be very unpopular. For one, this administration and its party
line is plunging into the pit of a serious credibility crisis. They never
bothered even to approximate their promised legislations that could have
substantiated their slogans and probably bolster this country to real
prosperity—the likes of the antipoverty bill, the freedom of information bill,
the anti-dynasty bill and a couple more.
Some well-meaning citizens harbor suspicions of some sinister plot from
somewhere in the corridors of power that stand to benefit once the country open
wide its doors to foreign capitalists.

But granting
that amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution happens, this
will only be a formality of a “de facto” invasion of foreign capitalists that
has been wrecking havoc to Philippine economy for some years now. Through the labyrinth of intricate corporate
layering and dummies, foreign tycoons from neighboring Asian countries are in
control of the country’s economy by being the majority owners of the
Philippines’ public utility enterprise. These tycoons are presently the
controlling stockholders of the country’s biggest public utility firms in
electric power, communications, water, transportation and, more so, other big
businesses such as mining.

Thanks to the
president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, Archbishop
Socrates Villegas, who rushed to pose these questions: 1. What do we, as a nation, stand to
gain from relaxing the provisions now deemed restrictive? 2. How are we assured that the
resources of the country, both natural and human, benefit Filipino nationals
principally? 3. What are the
human, social and environmental costs of lifting present limits to foreign
participation in Philippine economic and business affairs?

Truth to tell,
whenever moves to amend the Philippine constitution are in the offing, one can
be more or less certain that they are meant to advance a political agenda that
is not inclusive. This country has not
yet reached a political maturity wherein the common good is given
prominence. The Philippine political
culture is what needs changing, not the charter.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

DURING his May 24 Regina Caeli address
at St. Peter’s, Pope Francis has strongly called on the international community
to help several boat loads of refugees that are reportedly still stranded after
attempting to sail across the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea.

“I
continue following with great concern the events of the many refugees in the
Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea. I
express my appreciation for the efforts made by those countries that have
expressed willingness to welcome these people who are facing great suffering
and danger. I encourage the
international community to provide them with the necessary humanitarian
assistance,” exhorted the Pontiff.

According
to reports, these “boat people” who are still being tossed at sea were
transported by human traffickers and later abandoned amid crackdowns by
Thailand government. The U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that some 2,000 people are presently
stranded in the Bay of Bengal and another 1,500 in the Andaman Sea. Indonesia and Malaysia have committed to
take some of these asylum seekers that are mostly Rohingya Muslims escaping
persecution in Burma. But other Asian
countries are still adamant to allow them to land on their shores, for one
reason or the other.

The
president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, Archbishop
Socrates Villegas lauded the Philippine government for opening its shores to
our Asian brothers who have suffered enough in their homeland and continue to
suffer at sea for several weeks now.
Villegas refers to them as the “Anawim of the Lord today”. They are “refugees in flimsy boats, making
their way to our shores, having endured appalling conditions aboard these
vessels… many of them lost their lives in the attempt to find some haven. They navigate to our waters tired, famished,
desperate—many of them carrying the dead bodies of their children in their
arms.”

Says
Villegas, “While it is maybe true that there is no legal obligation on the part
of the Republic of the Philippines or that any other any other country to grant
asylum to every refugee or displaced person, there is a moral obligation to
protect them from the harm they flee from.
There is a legal obligation not to forcibly repatriate them. And by all precepts of morality and decency,
there is an obligation not to leave them to the mercilessness of the elements
on the high seas.” For sure the Filipino
will always welcome refugees. It is part
of the Filipino culture that gladly transcends even legal requisites that other
Asian countries find so hard to surpass.

The
Philippine has a happy track record of being hospitable to refugees. From the 70s until the 90s this country has
hosted hundreds of thousand refugees from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It may be
good to know that the CBCP has already issued four pastoral statements in
pursuit of the cause of “boat people”, namely:
“Because I was a stranger and you
made me welcome” in 1975; “I was a
stranger….” in 1979; “Statement of
the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on refugees” in 1980;
and “Refugees—the ‘Anawim’ of the Lord today”
in 2015.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

“WHOEVER lives the mission of Caritas is
not simply a charity worker, but is a true witness of Christ, one who seeks
Christ and allows Christ to seek him, one who loves with the spirit of Christ,
a spirit of gratuitousness and gift. All
our strategies and plans remain empty unless we carry this love in us.” This was what Pope Francis told the over 300
Caritas delegates from across the world at the opening mass of the 20th
General Assembly of Caritas Internationalis held at St. Peter’s Basilica in
Rome on May 12. Caritas Internationalis
which is the main charity arm of the Catholic Church is slated from May 12-17
on the theme “One Human Family, Caring for Creation.”

This
certainly differentiates substantially the charity work of the Catholic Church
from the humanitarian work of well-funded philanthropists. In Ecclesia
in Europa, Saint Pope John Paul II already pointed out that serving the
mission of the Church “by means of a charity that evangelizes is the commitment
and the responsibility of everyone.” (No. 33).
With the values of the Gospel in
tow, it is “caritas” that, more than anything else, evangelizes especially by
witnessing to the “joy of the Gospel” even in the midst of poverty, injustice
and suffering.

Pope
Francis told the delegates that the source of the organizations’ global work
“lies in the simple and docile welcome of God and neighbor…This is the
root. If you cut this root, Caritas
dies.” It is in this spirit that even
the social and organizational structure of these charitable institutions should
manifest. “Let us ask the Lord for the grace to
understand the true dimension of Caritas, for the grace not to fall into the
deception of believing that well-organized centralization is the way, for the
grace to understand that Caritas is always on the periphery, in every
particular Church…The Caritas of each particular church, even the smallest, is
the same. There is no big Caritas or small Caritas, all are the same.”

For
Pope Francis, belief in God and assisting others go hand in hand. Faith according to him is “to welcome God and
express this in service to our brothers and sisters. Word, sacraments and service lead to and
nourish each other… to wash the feet and bathe the wounds of the suffering and
to prepare a table for them… All our
strategies and plans remain empty unless we carry this love in us. Not our love but his. Or better yet, our love purified and
strengthened by his love.”

At
the end of the day, it’s all about faith, love and the spirituality of charity
workers—and not simply about mobilizations and strategic social action work
that even makes use of high-level corporate systems. And here comes the rub. If only to deliver and manage a most
systematic charity work, some catholic charitable institutions hire top-level
workers sans the Catholic values cited by Pope Francis. Of late, for instance, an international
Catholic charitable institution was accused of hiring workers that oppose
fundamental Catholic moral teachings.
Hereabouts, many are just too secular and too mainstream.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

THE members of Pontiﬁcal Committee for International Eucharistic
Congresses that includes the national and local committees that are tasked to
prepare for the 51st International Eucharistic Congress gathered in Plenary
Assembly in Cebu City this April 24-28, 2015.Te Plenary convened around 82 international
and local delegates of bishops, priests, religious and lay from 47 countries.

Foremost in the agenda of this signal gathering was
the presentation of the theological and pastoral perspectives that will
serve as the mooring of the forthcoming Eucharistic Congress that will be held
on Jan. 24-31, 2016 in Cebu City. In the previous congress that was
held in Dublin, Ireland in June 2012 the Eucharist was seen as
“communion”. This time it will be seen as “mission”.

The Plenary pointed out that “the mission of the Church
in Asia has to be undertaken in dialogue with the poor. This is because while
the continent is rich in culture and its people are rich in human and religious
values, a great multitude of them live in situations of poverty, powerlessness,
marginalization, victimization and suffering ... They are poor not because
their continent lack natural and material resources but because they are
deprived of access to material goods and resources... Oppressive and
unjust social, economic, and political structures keep them from enjoying
the rich natural patrimony of their lands.”

The Holy Eucharist, which according to the theological
reflections of the Plenary Assembly is the “Church’s dialogue with the poor” upholds
the values that negate the causes of poverty such as selfishness and
greed. “It calls into question apathy and individualism...it confronts
oppressive totalitarian leaderships that put political and economic advantages
above people...(it) challenges utilitarianism, consumerism, and materialism
that treat the poor and the weak as commodities and tools...”

This theology, however, does not trickle yet into the perspectives
and lives of most of the faithful. Perhaps the greater mission is to make the
Eucharist understood by the greater majority of the faithful, who are
mostly the poor, in the midst of natural or folk religiosity and fanaticism
that blur the Eucharist from where it should be.

Wednesday, April 08, 2015

ONE of the more objective thought on the
issue of peacemaking and the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) is that of Archbishop
Socrates Villegas which, as he premised, he is sharing neither as president of
the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines nor as archbishop of
Lingayen Dagupan, but “as a Filipino and a believer in Christ”.Dated in time for the celebration of “Araw ng
Kagitingan” (The Day of Valor) on April 9, he titles his piece “Bataan Valor, Peacemaking and the Draft BBL”.

Admittedly,
the Mamasapano clash last January has triggered deep-seated apprehensions on
the peacemaking efforts in Mindanao particularly on the draft BBL, which should
not be the case. Providentially or otherwise, this incident made even the
general public more serious about this draft legislation. But to equate peace and the BBL would be a
careless association that may in fact be counterproductive in the long
haul. “What threatens the prospect of
peace most, however, is equating it with the present BBL and threatening the
return of violence and bloodshed should the Legislature fail to pass it
intact!,” says Archbishop Villegas.

The threat of
bloodshed if the BBL draft is not passed in
toto was made of late by no less than the president himself and the head of
the peace negotiating panel. Says the
archbishop, “Our sights should be set
not on a truce, not on some tenuous cessation of hostilities, and for this,
principles must be explicated, clearly discussed and rationally agreed on. This
is what I refer to as ‘principled peace’. And warning that we shall have war
unless BBL is passed does not make for principled peace!”

On its
constitutionality, the archbishop opines, “It is my position that all
suggestions, insinuations or hints that the Constitution will be amended to
accommodate the provisions of the BBL cease. The Constitution is not a document
that can be dealt with in patch-work fashion whenever we enter into
negotiations with any restive sector of the Philippines. In this respect, the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral
Domains (Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel, 2008) ought to be the
juridical sieve through which the BBL should be examined. If we pass anything
now, let us enact a document that we are morally certain will withstand
constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court. I have paid close attention
to the arguments of the legal experts summoned by the houses of Congress to
shed light on the Constitutional issues, and I am convinced that there are some
very crucial points of constitutional law that ought to be resolved. Glossing
over them will not be helpful at all, and it is neither my place nor my
competence to pass upon them now.”

The abating
stature of the Aquino administration may actually be another big factor that
could be dragging the current peacemaking initiative an uphill climb—at least
in the bar of public opinion. Everybody
wants peace. But a good one.